Sarah-Polley Movie Reviews

"My Life Before This" is one of those movies (usually relegated to the "arthouse" movement these days!) that really leaves you thinking about what you have just watched, and you will be thinking about this film long after the movie has ended! The film deals with the impact of our choices and decisions in our lives. Even the most mundane and seemingly "unimportant" choices can have life-altering, and even catastrophic results, as the characters in this artfully crafted drama soon find out! The film begins in a coffeshop, where we are introduced to most of the films main characters. The lives of everyone in the coffeshop is forever changed when a crime being committed in a nearby building spils over into their midst. Next, the film switches gears and takes us back in time, showing us an "alternate" view of what COULD have happened that day in the coffeshop, if only different, seemingly "unimportant" choices had been made by some of those involved. The film then ends back in the coffeshop, showing us the results of this "alternate" set of choices. The film's message will really stay with you. It will really make you consider the decisions that you make in day to day life, and how those decisions may effect others. The film shows a hint of influence from the great Canadian director Atom Egoyan, and so I was not suprised to see some familiar faces from Egoyan films, namely Sarah Polley and Alberta Watson, who previously appeared together in Egoyan's masterful "The Sweet Hereafter". Another familiar face to art-film buffs will be Stephen Rea, who previously appeared with Polley in the underrated "Guinevere". (And was also excellent as a faded rock star in "Still Crazy".) The whole cast is quite good in their roles, and comic actress Catherine O' Hara (of "Second City TV" and "Home Alone" fame) takes on a slightly more serious role as a bridal shop worker who is herself, unlucky in love. (She does manage to get in a few of the films only comical lines). One thing I must say is that if you don't plan to pay attention to this film, then don't even bother! With its interweving characters and plotlines, this film will need your full attention to be truly appreciated. That being said, I would highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys thought-provoking arthouse cinema...But be prepared to think after you watch!

"The Life Before This," never before has tradegy been displayed so beautifully. Out of jest one night, I was pacing up and down the aisles at the local video store. Nothing was looking good at all, and after just skimming titles, I decided to get 'int depth' about certain movies that looked appealing, yet none that were quite mainstream. So after doing so, I just saw the cover of this box. It seemed to display a story already just from the simple imagery on the cover. Right away I was enticed to see what this tale was about... to sum it up, you know when you have a decidsion or you nee to decide what to do for a certain evening, and I'm sure we've all had these moments where we can't decide between the two or so more options give. Well imagine going with one...just see what happens that night. Good or bad, it's a given. Now imagine if you were to do the latent of the two, the other thought that you had in mind..if only you've stuck with that one, where would it take you?

'The Life Before This,' deals with that. It takes this small circle of charcaters whose life all communicate with eachother in someway, and it takes the last night of their tragic death and transforms it into a fairytale, if they were only to do one simpe thing different the day of their passing. This movie yes, isn't the most uplifting, but it has a beauty to it that could never be describe with the most of elegant words. It starts off displaying the ending, but take syou througha dream of sadness, happiness, life and regret through each different standpoint allowed... what if this were your last day to breathe? Would it end in a peaceful fashion, or one which you'd always wish you'd have said more... 'The Life Before This' is recommended for any seeking anything from a deeper philosophical meaning, to just someone whom just appreciates a good movie. It is most definitely, not the type to let down.

The "Sweet Hereafter" is an honest, realistic movie that deals in a subtle way, with strong emotions like anger and grief, and at the end manages to give a glimpse of hope.

It tells the story of a small town in Canada that suffers a tragic bus accident, losing most of its children and as a result, losing much of its happiness and joy. A lawyer, who in a way, has lost his own daughter too, is visiting the town. He tries to persuade the victims' parents, to join in a class action lawsuit.

Through his visit, we gradually learn about the people's lonely and sad lives before and after the accident. We also realize how this case is just the outlet of the anger the lawyer feels about his own life.

The film is really depressing, but it achieves in that you never feel manipulated. Its director, Atom Egoyan, helped by a superb script, never goes for the easy tears and cheap emotions.

As for the cast, Ian Holm, portraying the lawyer, and Sarah Polley (also starring in "Go!"), who plays a survivor of the accident, stand out. Holm is a revelation in a monologue, describing the incident when his daughter almost died of a spider bite. Polley uses her expressive face and eyes extensively, to reveal all her troubled emotions.

Other high points of the film include the excellent music score which follows faithfully the atmosphere, the photography, with the images of the surrounding frozen mountains, providing a successful parallelism with the parents' tortured psyches, and the use of Robert Browning's poem "The Pied Piper of Hamelin" as a powerful metaphor.

"The Sweet Hereafter," a miraculous adaptation of an oddly structured but brilliant book by Russel Banks, is one of the most lovely, unforgettable movies of the 90's. Egoyan incorporates the music of the Tragically Hip (performed both by them, and hauntingly by the film's star Sarah Polley), barren winter imagery, deeply layered characters, and a non-linear story line all to great effect. Probably the most effective scenes in the movie are the times when the landscape is still and the characters just sit. There is the haunting feedback of a discarded guitar, the silent play between Ian Holm and Sarah Polley in their few scenes together, the moment in which the doomed school bus at the story's center hovers tenuously on the ice...Everything has the effect of passing the viewer into a world at once bleak and hopeful, beautiful and disturbing. The ideas behind the film go deeper than just grief and loss, often so deep that they cannot be fully articulated even far down in the viewers soul. It just sits there like a weight on the heart for weeks after viewing and never lets the viewer escape its haunting grip. Sarah Polley and Ian Holm give standout performances, Atom Egoyan confirms the genious sugested at in "Exotica," and the score is a must-have for any music fan. I couldn't recommend the film any more strongly. It is the best film of the 90's.

I am dissapointed by movies, as a general rule. Few movies, even independent ones, dare to speak about anything but the obvious. Some movies have great acting and visual style. Others have a structure that enhance the story and themes, or explore uncommonly profound themes. It's rare that one finds all of these things together in one mind-blowing film.

The Sweet Hereafter is one such mindblowing film. It is about a terrible bus accident that kills 15 children, although we only see it from afar, and halfway into the movie - the accident is a pivotal temporal point but not the focus. The focus is on the actions surrounding that accident, and what they tell us. All the while, the story is not told in chronological order, but more or less in thematical order. Past, present and future are shuffled effortlessly, because the accident is our anchor to the story.

The story concerns many people, but especially one Mitchell Stephens, played by Ian Holm, as a lawyer hired by the Walkers (one of the victimized families) to start a class action lawsuit. He hops from family to family, from evidence to evidence, in increasingly manipulative attempts to rally town inhabitants to his cause, while the sordid secrets of the community threaten to derail him at every turn. A survivor, Nicole, is now handicapped and holds an important testimony.

Ian Holm never had a leading role before this movie. Watching his incredible performance, I want to scream bloody murder. He's perfect. That this guy can't get a leading role is mind-bogglingly insane. The other actors, though less well-known, don't unbalance the movie at all.

At first, it seems that the movie is a simple left-right conflict, with the hypocrite and conniving community on one hand, and the profiteering lawyer from the big city on the other hand. And it seems that most critics have interpreted it as such, even taking position for one or the other when no such bias is apparent in the movie. I think that says more about their statist political views than it says about the movie.

The subtextual richness of this movie is stunning. Using the story of "The Pied Piper of Hamelin", it compares Stephens' cynical crusade to channel the parents' anger, as well as the independence-destroying authority of Nicole's father, to the Pied Piper story. In essence, they are leading people to more disaster, the former social and the latter psychological.

Stephens' blatant use of invented narrative to coax parents into joining his case brings up the evil uses of storytelling in our society. We see Stephens' desire to lose himself in his case and the town around him, we assume because of her daughter's drug addiction, masterfully played by Iam Holm. The question of responsibility comes up repeatedly, as people's desire to find a guilty party blinds them to the fact that some things are simply accidents. Some of these themes find great resonance in today's lawsuit frenzies used to undermine capitalism.

If there is one thing I find lacking in the movie, it is a lack of moral center. Nicole does provide us with a possibly moral action at the end of the movie, which I will not reveal, but the rest of the movie is very morally bleak from a rational perspective. It is not that I found it depressing, but simply morally bleak. Then again, that is what reality is like - as most people lack such moral center and desire to do good, messes like this one are common.

The movie was directed by Atom Egoyan, a Canadian director. I'm not a big fan of his, and I didn't like Exotica, but he has to be good to have a movie like this in him. Perhaps the fact that he didn't create this world has something to do with it. As for the movie being Canadian, it is set in British Columbia, and the most obvious indicator of this is that there is no media circus surrounding the whole affair. But written as a fable-like story, it could be set in a great number of places. It is not the accident itself which resonates with the viewer, or the town, but the truth of the movie.

The "Sweet Hereafter" is an honest, realistic movie that deals in a subtle way, with strong emotions like anger and grief, and at the end manages to give a glimpse of hope.

It tells the story of a small town in Canada that suffers a tragic bus accident, losing most of its children and as a result, losing much of its happiness and joy. A lawyer, who in a way, has lost his own daughter too, is visiting the town. He tries to persuade the victims' parents, to join in a class action lawsuit.

Through his visit, we gradually learn about the people's lonely and sad lives before and after the accident. We also realize how this case is just the outlet of the anger the lawyer feels about his own life.

The film is really depressing, but it achieves in that you never feel manipulated. Its director, Atom Egoyan, helped by a superb script, never goes for the easy tears and cheap emotions.

As for the cast, Ian Holm, portraying the lawyer, and Sarah Polley (also starring in "Go!"), who plays a survivor of the accident, stand out. Holm is a revelation in a monologue, describing the incident when his daughter almost died of a spider bite. Polley uses her expressive face and eyes extensively, to reveal all her troubled emotions.

Other high points of the film include the excellent music score which follows faithfully the atmosphere, the photography, with the images of the surrounding frozen mountains, providing a successful parallelism with the parents' tortured psyches, and the use of Robert Browning's poem "The Pied Piper of Hamelin" as a powerful metaphor.

"The Sweet Hereafter," a miraculous adaptation of an oddly structured but brilliant book by Russel Banks, is one of the most lovely, unforgettable movies of the 90's. Egoyan incorporates the music of the Tragically Hip (performed both by them, and hauntingly by the film's star Sarah Polley), barren winter imagery, deeply layered characters, and a non-linear story line all to great effect. Probably the most effective scenes in the movie are the times when the landscape is still and the characters just sit. There is the haunting feedback of a discarded guitar, the silent play between Ian Holm and Sarah Polley in their few scenes together, the moment in which the doomed school bus at the story's center hovers tenuously on the ice...Everything has the effect of passing the viewer into a world at once bleak and hopeful, beautiful and disturbing. The ideas behind the film go deeper than just grief and loss, often so deep that they cannot be fully articulated even far down in the viewers soul. It just sits there like a weight on the heart for weeks after viewing and never lets the viewer escape its haunting grip. Sarah Polley and Ian Holm give standout performances, Atom Egoyan confirms the genious sugested at in "Exotica," and the score is a must-have for any music fan. I couldn't recommend the film any more strongly. It is the best film of the 90's.

I am dissapointed by movies, as a general rule. Few movies, even independent ones, dare to speak about anything but the obvious. Some movies have great acting and visual style. Others have a structure that enhance the story and themes, or explore uncommonly profound themes. It's rare that one finds all of these things together in one mind-blowing film.

The Sweet Hereafter is one such mindblowing film. It is about a terrible bus accident that kills 15 children, although we only see it from afar, and halfway into the movie - the accident is a pivotal temporal point but not the focus. The focus is on the actions surrounding that accident, and what they tell us. All the while, the story is not told in chronological order, but more or less in thematical order. Past, present and future are shuffled effortlessly, because the accident is our anchor to the story.

The story concerns many people, but especially one Mitchell Stephens, played by Ian Holm, as a lawyer hired by the Walkers (one of the victimized families) to start a class action lawsuit. He hops from family to family, from evidence to evidence, in increasingly manipulative attempts to rally town inhabitants to his cause, while the sordid secrets of the community threaten to derail him at every turn. A survivor, Nicole, is now handicapped and holds an important testimony.

Ian Holm never had a leading role before this movie. Watching his incredible performance, I want to scream bloody murder. He's perfect. That this guy can't get a leading role is mind-bogglingly insane. The other actors, though less well-known, don't unbalance the movie at all.

At first, it seems that the movie is a simple left-right conflict, with the hypocrite and conniving community on one hand, and the profiteering lawyer from the big city on the other hand. And it seems that most critics have interpreted it as such, even taking position for one or the other when no such bias is apparent in the movie. I think that says more about their statist political views than it says about the movie.

The subtextual richness of this movie is stunning. Using the story of "The Pied Piper of Hamelin", it compares Stephens' cynical crusade to channel the parents' anger, as well as the independence-destroying authority of Nicole's father, to the Pied Piper story. In essence, they are leading people to more disaster, the former social and the latter psychological.

Stephens' blatant use of invented narrative to coax parents into joining his case brings up the evil uses of storytelling in our society. We see Stephens' desire to lose himself in his case and the town around him, we assume because of her daughter's drug addiction, masterfully played by Iam Holm. The question of responsibility comes up repeatedly, as people's desire to find a guilty party blinds them to the fact that some things are simply accidents. Some of these themes find great resonance in today's lawsuit frenzies used to undermine capitalism.

If there is one thing I find lacking in the movie, it is a lack of moral center. Nicole does provide us with a possibly moral action at the end of the movie, which I will not reveal, but the rest of the movie is very morally bleak from a rational perspective. It is not that I found it depressing, but simply morally bleak. Then again, that is what reality is like - as most people lack such moral center and desire to do good, messes like this one are common.

The movie was directed by Atom Egoyan, a Canadian director. I'm not a big fan of his, and I didn't like Exotica, but he has to be good to have a movie like this in him. Perhaps the fact that he didn't create this world has something to do with it. As for the movie being Canadian, it is set in British Columbia, and the most obvious indicator of this is that there is no media circus surrounding the whole affair. But written as a fable-like story, it could be set in a great number of places. It is not the accident itself which resonates with the viewer, or the town, but the truth of the movie.

Narratively akin to Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in its freewheeling, character-based structure, Go taps into a much funnier, less savage vein with a group of truly oddball characters and a plot that's less a plot than a paratactical series of events.

Sarah Polley wins this one hands down as the strongest protagonist of the bunch. Edgy, deliciously bitchy at times, and purposeful, her Ronna kicks off the movie with a bang. A breathless trek through her desperate 11th-hour attempt to make rent money gives this movie a relentless rhythm perfectly suited to director Doug Liman's cinematic techniques. This section also introduces the characters at their best: Katie Holmes' wonderfully oddball Claire; Timothy Olyphant as the dangerous and charming Todd Gaines. Easily the best section in this multiple-narrative movie, Ronna's sets the bar very high for the rest of the film.

Too bad the middle two sections meander way too much to the point of almost losing narrative drive altogether. Once Simon and his buddies hit Las Vegas, the pace slows down, dialogue gets multiplied disconcertingly, and events lose the kinetic energy of the drug-deal section. Personally I had a limited tolerance for Simon's silly exploits, best shown in the strip-club sequence. It's not much fun to watch a protagonist (and in his section, Simon is) who's constantly babbling with little motivation other than the most basic impulses.

The "Adam and Zack" section is even worse. Though it's nice to see the Ronna set-up from the other side, this section is the most languishing in the movie. A drop-dead boring dinner scene with flickers of comedy, and then the watery, dewy-eyed but completely uninteresting Scott Wolf comes along as pretty-boy actor Adam, ruining the irresistibly tough attitude of the movie. Jay Mohr fares much better as wishy-washy but proactive sidekick Zack, and he's the one who succeeds in driving the action somewhat in this section. Overall, however, the "Adam and Zack" section is like one long, not-so-exciting sitcom episode.

The final section, thankfully, rediscovers the engine of the movie when Claire re-enters the scene. Katie Holmes' interactions with Olyphant (who does a marvellous 180-degree turn to become a starry-eyed macho specimen in this segment) are priceless, and it's here that the funniest bits of the movie emerge: Claire screaming at the club guys looking to kill Simon (Holmes' final reaction shot in this sequence is hilarious); Ronna re-entering the movie (with a limp, no less) and discovering what she'd forgotten amidst all the mayhem; Manny's re-entrance.

One star off for those shaky middle points aforementioned. But the comic jewels we pick up along the way, in the beginning and at the end are well worth suffering through the weaker moments.

I'd seen this movie around for ages but I never gave it a chance coz of one thing... somebody from Dawsons Creek was on the front! Out of pure boredom I decided to read a review anyway, just to find out how bad it was gonna be. First I looked at the rating, 5 out of 5!! Unbelievably it sounded like a really decent film so I rented it and boy was I pleasantly surprised! Go is a fast paced Comedy/Drama based on one story told from three angles. The first is one girls adventure to try and score some rent money by doing a first time drug deal with a menacing drug dealer. Meanwhile two soap opera actors have been busted for drugs and are helping the cops bust their dealer who is actually away in Las Vegas! The film opens with lots of quick shots at a rave, with Katie Holmes rambling on as if shes on all kinds of drugs - this was something I wasn't expecting, that good girl from Dawsons Creek completely out of it! We then move to a super market and meet one of the main characters Ronna (a superb Sarah Polley) Shes desperate for rent money the day before she is set to be evicted, and so hastley agrees to cover Simons (Desmond Askew) shift so that he can party in Vegas. Two guys arrive at her checkout wondering if she could sort them out for a party that they are going to. With money on the brain she accepts and takes Claire (Holmes) and Mani (Nathan Bexton) on a mission around LA to score some E. The nice thing about this film is that the three stories manage to connect really smoothly and not much brain power is needed. The cast are fantastic, all giving something to make this film very special. I now have changed my mind on that girl from Dawsons Creek and will now continue to call her Katie Holmes and will sometimes even tolerate Dawsons Creek. If you're gonna buy this, I recommend the DVD, its packed with loadsa goodies including an interesting Making of feature and 14 deleted scenes.

This is a great Gen-X flick. It follows the lives of several people to Vegas and back jumping scenes like a train switching tracks. It's all a matter of chance and the idea of 6 degrees from speperation that bring all of these characters together and make one great movie. Sarah Polley plays a girl that just needs to make some extra dough to pay rent so when another guy she's working for at the supermarket is suppose to sell some X she takes over and gets herself into a bundle of trouble.

Narratively akin to Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in its freewheeling, character-based structure, Go taps into a much funnier, less savage vein with a group of truly oddball characters and a plot that's less a plot than a paratactical series of events.

Sarah Polley wins this one hands down as the strongest protagonist of the bunch. Edgy, deliciously bitchy at times, and purposeful, her Ronna kicks off the movie with a bang. A breathless trek through her desperate 11th-hour attempt to make rent money gives this movie a relentless rhythm perfectly suited to director Doug Liman's cinematic techniques. This section also introduces the characters at their best: Katie Holmes' wonderfully oddball Claire; Timothy Olyphant as the dangerous and charming Todd Gaines. Easily the best section in this multiple-narrative movie, Ronna's sets the bar very high for the rest of the film.

Too bad the middle two sections meander way too much to the point of almost losing narrative drive altogether. Once Simon and his buddies hit Las Vegas, the pace slows down, dialogue gets multiplied disconcertingly, and events lose the kinetic energy of the drug-deal section. Personally I had a limited tolerance for Simon's silly exploits, best shown in the strip-club sequence. It's not much fun to watch a protagonist (and in his section, Simon is) who's constantly babbling with little motivation other than the most basic impulses.

The "Adam and Zack" section is even worse. Though it's nice to see the Ronna set-up from the other side, this section is the most languishing in the movie. A drop-dead boring dinner scene with flickers of comedy, and then the watery, dewy-eyed but completely uninteresting Scott Wolf comes along as pretty-boy actor Adam, ruining the irresistibly tough attitude of the movie. Jay Mohr fares much better as wishy-washy but proactive sidekick Zack, and he's the one who succeeds in driving the action somewhat in this section. Overall, however, the "Adam and Zack" section is like one long, not-so-exciting sitcom episode.

The final section, thankfully, rediscovers the engine of the movie when Claire re-enters the scene. Katie Holmes' interactions with Olyphant (who does a marvellous 180-degree turn to become a starry-eyed macho specimen in this segment) are priceless, and it's here that the funniest bits of the movie emerge: Claire screaming at the club guys looking to kill Simon (Holmes' final reaction shot in this sequence is hilarious); Ronna re-entering the movie (with a limp, no less) and discovering what she'd forgotten amidst all the mayhem; Manny's re-entrance.

One star off for those shaky middle points aforementioned. But the comic jewels we pick up along the way, in the beginning and at the end are well worth suffering through the weaker moments.

I'd seen this movie around for ages but I never gave it a chance coz of one thing... somebody from Dawsons Creek was on the front! Out of pure boredom I decided to read a review anyway, just to find out how bad it was gonna be. First I looked at the rating, 5 out of 5!! Unbelievably it sounded like a really decent film so I rented it and boy was I pleasantly surprised! Go is a fast paced Comedy/Drama based on one story told from three angles. The first is one girls adventure to try and score some rent money by doing a first time drug deal with a menacing drug dealer. Meanwhile two soap opera actors have been busted for drugs and are helping the cops bust their dealer who is actually away in Las Vegas! The film opens with lots of quick shots at a rave, with Katie Holmes rambling on as if shes on all kinds of drugs - this was something I wasn't expecting, that good girl from Dawsons Creek completely out of it! We then move to a super market and meet one of the main characters Ronna (a superb Sarah Polley) Shes desperate for rent money the day before she is set to be evicted, and so hastley agrees to cover Simons (Desmond Askew) shift so that he can party in Vegas. Two guys arrive at her checkout wondering if she could sort them out for a party that they are going to. With money on the brain she accepts and takes Claire (Holmes) and Mani (Nathan Bexton) on a mission around LA to score some E. The nice thing about this film is that the three stories manage to connect really smoothly and not much brain power is needed. The cast are fantastic, all giving something to make this film very special. I now have changed my mind on that girl from Dawsons Creek and will now continue to call her Katie Holmes and will sometimes even tolerate Dawsons Creek. If you're gonna buy this, I recommend the DVD, its packed with loadsa goodies including an interesting Making of feature and 14 deleted scenes.

This is a great Gen-X flick. It follows the lives of several people to Vegas and back jumping scenes like a train switching tracks. It's all a matter of chance and the idea of 6 degrees from speperation that bring all of these characters together and make one great movie. Sarah Polley plays a girl that just needs to make some extra dough to pay rent so when another guy she's working for at the supermarket is suppose to sell some X she takes over and gets herself into a bundle of trouble.

I liked this film a lot - it made me cry.

Now, I'll let youin on a little secret----the film is about a homosexual guy who returns home after running away from his family over 10 years earlier. When he left he was a huge (as in obease) teenager, struggling with being homosexual, and having tried to kill himself. He returns a svealt, kind of happy adult and takes a rather painful trip down memory lane. The secret is, I probably liked it because I used to be a 350 pound homosexual teenager---and I'm not anymore......but you always remember. So I warn you ahead of time, I might be somewhat personally jaded.

Personal experience aside, the film should work for just about everyone-----it has an uncanny ability to hone in on your emotions. They are all there--fear, loathing, confusion, sadness, acceptance. All as seen through one man who now sees just how unhappy and miserable all the people he left behind really always were.

It's definatly a film wirht having--you will watch it atleast 3 or four times and always find it entertaining.

This film is a strange, sad film about a young gay man and his miserable family. It reaches a point of crisis at his sister's wedding. There are tragic, believeable characters: the alcoholic father who can't control his temper, the burned-out mother worn down from keeping the family together, the daffy grandmother, the brassy, devoted sister, her indecisive, mixed-up husband. But for all that, we always remain fixated on the main character, both as despairing, lonely teenager and quietly self-assured young man. Some scenes grab the emotions like few other films have, especially for gay men struggling with unhappy childhoods. The only problem is that it's sometimes hard to understand. The director strives to be artistic, which is admirable, but the mixing of realistic melodrama and surrealism results in uncertainty, and when the film is over, I was uncertain as to what the director was trying to say. However, it is always gripping and holds the attention.

The film quality was good as was the audio. The actors did a good job and the story was strange but something connects with a great many who will see it. I related well with the film and was drawn into some parts deeply. I feel it was a good investment.

I liked this film a lot - it made me cry.

Now, I'll let youin on a little secret----the film is about a homosexual guy who returns home after running away from his family over 10 years earlier. When he left he was a huge (as in obease) teenager, struggling with being homosexual, and having tried to kill himself. He returns a svealt, kind of happy adult and takes a rather painful trip down memory lane. The secret is, I probably liked it because I used to be a 350 pound homosexual teenager---and I'm not anymore......but you always remember. So I warn you ahead of time, I might be somewhat personally jaded.

Personal experience aside, the film should work for just about everyone-----it has an uncanny ability to hone in on your emotions. They are all there--fear, loathing, confusion, sadness, acceptance. All as seen through one man who now sees just how unhappy and miserable all the people he left behind really always were.

It's definatly a film wirht having--you will watch it atleast 3 or four times and always find it entertaining.

This film is a strange, sad film about a young gay man and his miserable family. It reaches a point of crisis at his sister's wedding. There are tragic, believeable characters: the alcoholic father who can't control his temper, the burned-out mother worn down from keeping the family together, the daffy grandmother, the brassy, devoted sister, her indecisive, mixed-up husband. But for all that, we always remain fixated on the main character, both as despairing, lonely teenager and quietly self-assured young man. Some scenes grab the emotions like few other films have, especially for gay men struggling with unhappy childhoods. The only problem is that it's sometimes hard to understand. The director strives to be artistic, which is admirable, but the mixing of realistic melodrama and surrealism results in uncertainty, and when the film is over, I was uncertain as to what the director was trying to say. However, it is always gripping and holds the attention.

The film quality was good as was the audio. The actors did a good job and the story was strange but something connects with a great many who will see it. I related well with the film and was drawn into some parts deeply. I feel it was a good investment.

First of all, I hope you haven't read the Amazon.com review above, as it spoils one of the film's surprises. Second, I would give the film itself 5 stars, but I deduct a star for the lackluster DVD presentation. It's full-frame (not letterboxed) and as for extras, there are none - it's your basic no-frills movie-and-a-trailer. Bleh. (Hell, the trailer is letterboxed at 1.85, why isn't the film?)

Having said that, you still need to own this. Or at least rent it, be blown away, come back here, and order it. Don McKellar has fashioned one of the most subtly moving directorial debuts in recent memory. So many classic moments...Callum Keith Rennie showing his friend McKellar his special room; Sandra Oh's reaction to a message on an answering machine; David Cronenberg (yes, him; great director, kind of a one-note actor, but his presence here is amusing and perfectly Canadian) sitting alone in his apartment eating ice cream; McKellar and his sister Sarah Polley (who deserves more screen time) trying to grin and bear it as their mom throws the final Christmas party they'll never get to have; Cronenberg's employee at the gas company getting drunk and wobbling around the office; Genevieve Bujold saying "Bon voyage" in the elevator.

It's a full package. The movie honestly earns its laughs and tears (I'm not a big crier at movies, but I misted up a few times). McKellar's handling of a variety of characters, and crosscutting between same, should be an object lesson to any filmmaker attempting this type of group portrait (are you listening, P.T. Anderson? A movie doesn't have to be 3 hours long and have characters blurt out their neuroses in order to move us). This is a quiet, understated, very Canadian vision of the end of the world. In 95 minutes it speaks volumes about the variety of approaches to life and death (do you go for the gold and try to fulfill your wildest fantasies? or do you strive to maintain some dignity and integrity in the face of apocalypse?).

Look at this film and look at "Armageddon," and it will tell you everything that's wrong with Hollywood blockbusters and everything that can be terrific about indie films.

Most films dealing with apocalyptic themes, especially nowadays, likes to use a ton of flashy special effects and thundering soundtracks to convey the imminent demise of our planet. Fortunately for viewers who want something a little more thought provoking, other films about the end of the world occasionally slip through the cracks. One of these films is "Last Night," a chilling, low budget piece of cinema from Canada. "Last Night" doesn't have huge asteroids slamming into the planet, or killer plagues turning the human population into dust, but it does have heavy atmosphere and compelling performances from several actors and actresses you have probably never heard about. The movie even casts famous horror film director David Cronenberg in a major role. If you tire easily of the big Hollywood action/apocalypse films, turn to something like "Last Night" to get your Armageddon fix. About the only problem I had with "Last Night" concerned the play list on the radio station as it counted down the top 500 songs of all time. Personally, I didn't recognize very many of these tunes; I would have picked a few numbers that are more upbeat myself.

"Last Night" distressingly describes the last six hours of the last night the human race will ever see. Set in Toronto, Canada, the movie closely follows the final hours of several individuals, including a reclusive loner and his family, his best friend, an Asian woman desperately trying to reach her husband before the catastrophe arrives, an energy executive and his secretary, and a former high school French teacher. Perhaps surprisingly, most of these people sedately go about the last moments of their lives as though it isn't a big deal. The reason for this maddening calmness rests with the fact that the entire planet has known for some months that the end is coming, so most of the hysterical behavior you would expect to see has already worked itself out of most people's systems (Not everyone accepts their destiny. The streets are dangerous in places, with gangs going around tipping over buses or shooting and robbing people, but many people are staying at home quietly planning their final activities). What remains is a slightly sad resignation of the inescapable as each individual in the film goes about his or her personal business.

Duncan, the energy executive played by Canadian director David Cronenberg, spends his last few hours calling all of his customers to promise them that the power will remain on until the bitter end. Patrick Wheeler, the main character of the film and the loner who wishes to spend his last moments of life alone, makes an appearance at a family Christmas party where some of his pent up bitterness about a life cut short seep out in vitriolic comments to his parents and sister. His friend resorts to playing sexual games, trying to sleep with as many women of different races and physical attributes as possible. One of the women he conquers is his former French teacher, played effectively by a still sexy Genevieve Bujold. Bujold's appearance marks one of the most absurdly comic moments of the film when she quizzes a confused Patrick on his French speaking skills. The best performance in "Last Night" comes from the remarkable and beautiful Sandra Oh, who plays the Asian woman looking for her husband. She soon comes into Patrick's orbit, and seeks his help so she can carry out a grisly pact she made with her spouse. Oh, perhaps better than anyone else in the film, truly conveys the utter helplessness of the unfolding situation.

There seems to be some difficulty among viewers concerning what exactly will destroy the human race in this movie. I find this a bit odd because the ending gives a clear hint, and if that isn't enough, the fact that the sun still shines at midnight should provide a further clue. But what destroys the earth isn't as important as what the characters do regarding their impending fate, and that fate hangs over every action in the film like a black pall. Occasionally, the time flashes on the screen as the characters move another hour closer to doom, giving the whole film an incredible sense of claustrophobic tension. Arguably, the best line in the film comes from Patrick and his oversexed buddy, when Patrick says "See you later" and his friend replies without missing a beat, "No, you won't." Moments like these continually pull the viewer back into the unbearable agony of the film's central premise: There is no hope here, no magical hiding place in the mountains or under the sea where someone can avoid their fate. The ending is never in doubt in "Last Night."

If I had to compare "Last Night" with another film or book, I would say that Nevil Shute's "On the Beach" closely resembles this film in its psychological exploration of an unavoidable apocalyptic disaster. I noticed I was quiet and reflective for some time after watching this film, always a good indication that a movie or a book touched me in some way. Regrettably, the DVD of "Last Night" is a bare bones edition. All you get on the disc is a theatrical trailer and the film. I think a commentary would have been nice, at the very least, but ultimately the movie succeeds without any further elaborations by the director or writers. Hopefully, this great movie will see a reissue on DVD soon.

Last Night [my favourite movie] works so well at evoking many emotions (pity, suspense, sadness, gladness, etc.) but I am not surprised because it is written and directed by one of Canada's finest, Don McKellar.

It is set in Toronto on the very last hours before the world ends, and follows different people (all connected in some way) and how they choose to spend it. It is very dark, yet funny at times to watch as these people deal with the last 6 hours of their lives....what would you be doing?

Although this is a Canadian flick, you may recognize some of the people in it'.Don McKellar (co-wrote 'The Red Violin', was in eXistenZ, Waydowntown, and 'Twitch City' a hilarious and innovative television show directed by another Canadian gem, Bruce McDonald)'Sarah Polley (Road to Avonlea, eXistenZ , and Go)'David Cronenberg (yes, the ingenious director!)'Callum Keith Rennie (Memento, eXistenZ, and Hard Core Logo)'

The DVD itself doesn't offer many extras (well at least the one I own), but I am still happy to have it in my collection. So should you.

The movie was sort of interesting, but it didn't seem to have a point. I also didn't like the constant killings, even though they weren't actually shown. I wouldn't call it horrible, but I don't see a reason why anyone would want to see it. I don't even know why anyone bothered to make the movie.

One has to have a morbid sense of humor to enjoy this wry black comedy about two used car salesmen who moonlight as contract killers. The comedy is very tongue in cheek as these two miscreants matter-of-factly whack a dozen or so marked men while bickering over trivialities.

The gag is funny at first, but wears thin as we are treated to minor variations on the same theme for an hour and a half. Other than some innovative scene transitions, the direction by veteran TV director Saul Rubinek was nothing special, except I suppose he made good use of a very limited budget. The story was taken from a play by Rick Cleveland, ("The West Wing" TV series) and Rubinek maintained the theatrical feel using simple sets and concentrating mainly on the actors.

Joe Mantegna is an excellent tough-guy character actor and conjures another terrific mobster. He is a hard but practical murderer who takes the task as strictly business and longs to get out of the game. Sam Rockwell is also good as his dim-witted cohort, who begins to like his work a bit too much. Charles Durning gives a droll performance as an over-the-hill hit man who wants to write a book about his targets. There are also cameos by William Macy, Ted Danson and Peter Riegert.

This is a better than average B movie with some acting performances that are worth seeing. I rated it a 6/10. It is funny in a perverse way, and Mantegna's performance is a treat.

This extra-quirky black comedy works by dint of its unpredictable dialogue and sudden deaths (so to speak--it's the tale of two suburban hit men), as well as some unusual moments--one of the guys, burying a body in the forest, stops to look at a doe, only a few yards away. In addition, the scene transitions are cleverly done, moving back and forth in time and season--summer changes to winter in a few seconds, taking maximum advantage of the film medium to segue based on a few small random items into a milieu that's completely different from the previous one.

The hit men are played by Joe Mantegna, one of the executive producers, and Sam Rockwell, and their boss is Canadian actor Maury Chaykin. All are effective in their darkly funny roles, as are Peter Riegert, William H. Macy, Ted Danson, and Charles Durning as an older hit man who taught Mantegna's Tom everything he knows. Durning's Vic also wants to publish a book about his life, using a "pseudoname"--which does not go over too well with others.

Hit men are not called that for nothing. With a used car lot as a front, these guys get down to business wherever they're needed--northern Wisconsin or central Florida. There's a peculiar, but definitely interesting, mix of the comic and the serious as one of the two guys talks about how his newborn baby won't stop screaming in the middle of the night, making him think about exercising his craft on a family member. Juxtapose this with the same guy repeatedly cursing a chainsaw that refuses to start and you have one heck of a goofy movie that does stuff no other film has done...or maybe, wants to do.

There are really no women in the film, save for a very brief scene with one of the two guy's wives, and she's sleeping. It's a guy film all the way and although it probably could have used more substance, it's very good for what it is.

See it if you want to watch something different, unusual, offbeat, occasionally funny, and occasionally very sharp indeed.

The movie was sort of interesting, but it didn't seem to have a point. I also didn't like the constant killings, even though they weren't actually shown. I wouldn't call it horrible, but I don't see a reason why anyone would want to see it. I don't even know why anyone bothered to make the movie.

One has to have a morbid sense of humor to enjoy this wry black comedy about two used car salesmen who moonlight as contract killers. The comedy is very tongue in cheek as these two miscreants matter-of-factly whack a dozen or so marked men while bickering over trivialities.

The gag is funny at first, but wears thin as we are treated to minor variations on the same theme for an hour and a half. Other than some innovative scene transitions, the direction by veteran TV director Saul Rubinek was nothing special, except I suppose he made good use of a very limited budget. The story was taken from a play by Rick Cleveland, ("The West Wing" TV series) and Rubinek maintained the theatrical feel using simple sets and concentrating mainly on the actors.

Joe Mantegna is an excellent tough-guy character actor and conjures another terrific mobster. He is a hard but practical murderer who takes the task as strictly business and longs to get out of the game. Sam Rockwell is also good as his dim-witted cohort, who begins to like his work a bit too much. Charles Durning gives a droll performance as an over-the-hill hit man who wants to write a book about his targets. There are also cameos by William Macy, Ted Danson and Peter Riegert.

This is a better than average B movie with some acting performances that are worth seeing. I rated it a 6/10. It is funny in a perverse way, and Mantegna's performance is a treat.

This extra-quirky black comedy works by dint of its unpredictable dialogue and sudden deaths (so to speak--it's the tale of two suburban hit men), as well as some unusual moments--one of the guys, burying a body in the forest, stops to look at a doe, only a few yards away. In addition, the scene transitions are cleverly done, moving back and forth in time and season--summer changes to winter in a few seconds, taking maximum advantage of the film medium to segue based on a few small random items into a milieu that's completely different from the previous one.

The hit men are played by Joe Mantegna, one of the executive producers, and Sam Rockwell, and their boss is Canadian actor Maury Chaykin. All are effective in their darkly funny roles, as are Peter Riegert, William H. Macy, Ted Danson, and Charles Durning as an older hit man who taught Mantegna's Tom everything he knows. Durning's Vic also wants to publish a book about his life, using a "pseudoname"--which does not go over too well with others.

Hit men are not called that for nothing. With a used car lot as a front, these guys get down to business wherever they're needed--northern Wisconsin or central Florida. There's a peculiar, but definitely interesting, mix of the comic and the serious as one of the two guys talks about how his newborn baby won't stop screaming in the middle of the night, making him think about exercising his craft on a family member. Juxtapose this with the same guy repeatedly cursing a chainsaw that refuses to start and you have one heck of a goofy movie that does stuff no other film has done...or maybe, wants to do.

There are really no women in the film, save for a very brief scene with one of the two guy's wives, and she's sleeping. It's a guy film all the way and although it probably could have used more substance, it's very good for what it is.

See it if you want to watch something different, unusual, offbeat, occasionally funny, and occasionally very sharp indeed.